tv [untitled] July 14, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT
that issue, but don't tear down another one. maybe we need to create more beds. maybe we need to do something else. but let's not take away from one program to help another program. >> supervisors. i am a member of the health center community advisory board. associated with dealing with the homeless. there are a lot of miserable stories today that made me sick. but you can't give money to a homeless person and expected to turn out well. they voted to remain neutral because you cannot break what is in effect.
it has been 20 years since $422 has got a hotel room. there has than a certain amount of diseases that have set in. if this comes up again, without some kind of revision, the advisory board will vote to oppose it. the public health indications are just too great. how can you go to a hearing on trying to update violence? and proposing this? there was a time when it first came in that they tried to cut people off of their maintenance money. that resulted in an increase in crime.
the homicide rate rose for five years after that. why you think gavin newsom became mayor? supervisor kim: any other speakers? seeing no other public comment -- >> i think it would be wise to review the contract before you make assumptions. i believe that people can't even get eight hours of sleep under the contract. you will be getting my information requests. the thing about it is a i feel like making people pay for that type of housing sets you up for a legal liability.
someone said they weren't following the standards of care. between that, and several other problems. they talked about occupancy rates. it continuously fluctuates. if you look at a monthly report, it continuously fluctuates. i think my contention over the three years of going to the shelter monitoring committee is just to have a shelter system work efficiently and well where people can exit homelessness and not come back. for me, i see the shelter system as a major failure because they might get in the housing and a few more years later, her hair back at the shelter. we need some innovative thoughts
and actions to make the system better. right now, all i see our service providers running all parts of the systems. they are writing the checks and balances, the people that have innovative thought processes are continuously being kicked out. any other public comment? public comment is now closed. any follow-up questions or discussions? i wanted to thank everyone for being here. this is an issue that many are very passionate about. i want to thank many of the service providers and advocates. more than anything, we want to come to solutions and outcomes that addressed the home equity issue. we hope to reach some kind of solution. i also want to thank everyone for being here.
we will have john speak as well. we will have john speak after that. >> this is an ordinance that would prohibit the demolition of housing of 50 units. >> this is so out of the ordinary, i am very uncomfortable with this presentation. he is a member of the public. this is beyond the pale. if none of the members that made this one to present it, they can -- supervisor kim: it is more about the members of the committee worrying about other meetings.
>> go ahead. let it be known that this is out of the ordinary. the supervisors have staff, 12 people unavailable. so we will let someone who does not work for the city who is a paid advocate for a ballot measure coming out to present. supervisor kim: i will apologize for that. it is my fault. i did not other as a way that this has always been presented. i did not realize it was out of order. i will keep in mind that it is routine for supervisors to be on ordnance produced. supervisor elsbernd: were paid opponents of this measure going to get equal time? supervisor kim: there is a presentation on the ordinance. it is the authors that do it.
none of the authors were available today. we asked had to speak instead. supervisor farrell: can john hough speak about it? he is city staff. supervisor kim: i don't understand. this is my bad as chair. i would like him to speak on this matter. how we can definitely have john speaker, and i will not put a time limit. >> beyond that, giving some sort of presentation is a campaign speech. supervisor kim: i don't think it would be any different from supervisor sponsors speaking. supervisor elsbernd: ted is not elected. supervisor kim: again, that is my fault. i apologize.
i will ensure that we will keep to routine in the future. supervisor elsbernd: it is not routine that i am making a point out. this is an abuse of the process. it is a mistake to have a paid campaign advocates to have the chance to have the microphone. this is not about routine. it is a good government. supervisor kim: i disagree with that. the speech would not be any different. but if you would like john to speak first, we can do that. >> san francisco has a strong need to preserve housing. thanks to a state law, they spoke on new construction. the housing element identifies preserving existing housing as the best way to provide affordable housing and to make
the priority to discourage the demolition of existing housing. the sound housing of over 50 units. sound housing that is not condemned or eligible for a certificate of occupancy. i think the item that we just had, it is very important that we preserve affordable housing as much as we can. our rent-controlled housing perhaps the biggest stock of affordable housing. supervisor kim: if i had known this was going to be an issue, i would have prepared for this issue. >> rent-controlled housing is now a bigger source of affordable housing and we need to preserve its.
we're seeing a lot of rent- controlled housing through a variety of measures. mergers, condo conversions, we have a limited supply of that housing stock. it is just going down. if we do not take measures to preserve rent-controlled housing, we will continue to make san francisco a city in which people who are of low and moderate income will find it difficult to find affordable housing and we will end up being homeless. this ordinance is a fairly simple one. it is the demolition of sound housing and buildings of 50 or more units. the soundness is determined by the department of building inspection. it must be condemned or in eligible for a certificate of occupancy. the measure or individual
projects can be exempt from this ordinance by a 2/3 vote of the board of supervisors to ensure that if there any particularly good projects that might entail demolitions, if the benefits outweigh the negatives, it can be allowed to happen. and there is a last exemption. that is when the replacement housing will be 100% affordable to people whose income is 60% of the area and, or less. i think it addresses the problem of demolitions. we have had this problem since 1996. we cannot replace rent- controlled housing that gets demolished. it is of the utmost importance. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: i might as
well as the question of you, ted. is this intended to apply to park merced? >> it is based on where the permits have been granted. it could very well affect park merced. supervisor elsbernd: what about trinity plaza? >> it might meet the definition of condemned or ineligible. i think that is also a prime example of a 2/3 vote by the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: we have had lots of discussion today about in tents. your intent with this among others is to stop the park merced project. >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: thank you for getting that on the record. since that project has a
development agreement and there may be a referendum, and this legislation impact a development agreement? >> of development agreements are authorized by state statute and it provides that subsequent land use controls cannot work to impair the rights and obligations of the city under a development agreement. to the extent that there are valid agreements, this ordinance would not apply. supervisor elsbernd: it looks like the authors can't draft their intent. supervisor kim: and we have john from the planning department. >> i would like to do a quick review of what we see, the mechanics of it and some of the technical issues of it. and perhaps some unintended
consequences. it affects all zoning districts and i will say, one of the concerns i have is that there is inconsistency with the measure. there are some technical issues. it also affects not just a typical dwelling units, but hotels, restaurants, and student housing regardless of vacancy for occupancy. it does not affect property owned by non profit if the replacement housing is rental and will be 100% affordable. it does not affect property owned by the federal or state governments or the redevelopment agencies. or the application is prohibited by state law. unlike the current code that allows demolition, this
prohibits demolition unless certain findings are made. it is a reverse of the current situation. they would either condemn the building or complete an inspection report determining the substantial rehabilitation. and the cost would have to beat that least 75% of the cost to rebuild the same structure. technically, there are several issues that we are concerned about because of the lack of clarity. for example, and some pages, it refers to 20 units for 50 minutes as being the threshold. secondly, it is not consistent with chapter 1 of the building code or chapter 10 of the housing code with respect to a lot of the terminology. it is not the same terminology
used in those codes. as i understand it, there is the definition of those terms. it is also not clear as to whether the ordinance would affect hotels or hostels because it uses the term guest room. that term is used for tourist hotels and so on. and from a technical standpoint, this is probably not the intent, but relies on the 2011 housing element. there is no such thing. what the board just approved is the 2009 housing element. from a policy standpoint, i want to say that the planning department certainly supports the general plan revision the retention of existing housing is a critical factor. there is no question that we share that same goal.
i am concerned that there is potentially some unintended consequences with this particular measure. for example, by our rough calculation, there are 580 lots that would be affected by this ordinance. >> is there anything pending? applications for demolition beyond the big ones with of talked about? >> it is not clear and it depends on how these projects play out, but the hope sf projects could me. -- could be. the two big ones, and of the office of housing is here.
but they contain 7000 units, i believe. the ultimate goal is to have a mixed income community that includes for sale and rental on the same property. the exemption is specifically for property that will be 100% affordable to a person's earning below 60%. it is for a broader range of income levels. and the exemption is only for rental. >> how much money have we set aside? >> i'm sorry, i doubt of the answer to that one. just to be clear, and of the policy goals are to preserve low-income housing. but our reading of this is that it would also prohibit the definition of market rate condos. it would prohibit the demolition
of buildings built after 1979. it would prohibit the demolition of a university student housing. and it would prohibit the demolition of the 50 housing units even if the replacement project provides more units or if the replacement project is now entirely below 60%. those could be unintended consequences, but our reading is that those would be the consequences. again, these are based on our reading of this, and there are unclear provisions. it would limit the city for demolishing buildings for infrastructure projects as well. >> what we are doing for the central subway? >> exactly.
i hate that we are concerned about the unintended consequences. we would encourage you to take it very seriously. supervisor kim: i want to note that we have someone here from the office of economic analysis. he is here to answer any questions if there are any. >> i want to know how many reports you have cranked out? >> there is one more coming up, supervisor. i am happy to take any questions if there are any. supervisor kim: at this time, we will open up for public comment. two minutes. ok. three minutes.
>> a actually submitted a public speaker card. the office has looked at ballot measures and we have concerns as god has raised. it is a major concern of ours not only because of the intent to have mixed income housing, and it would be prohibited because the housing has to be replaced. but also because of the way the land is owned. the government agency that is owned, the land developed by those sites is ground lease to buy them. they are usually long term leases of to the terms of 99 years. that is construed as an ownership, and those buildings would be technically owned by the developers and not the
housing authority. one of the other consequences we wanted to raise, technically the way it is written literally, a nonprofit developers usually don't own the housing that we assist. it is technically owned by limited partnerships. they use an income tax credit to leverage equity. those limited partnership -- a non-profit and owns 100%. it is usually an affiliate of the nonprofit developer. we wanted to raise that as a concern. and in answer to your question in terms of commitment, the intent is to fund about $95 million of funds to the certificate program.
the actual authorization has been $38 million. supervisor elsbernd: it was a big issue. it is not subject to this because it was in a redevelopment project area. >> good afternoon or evening. thank you for your time on this. obviously i am in support of this measure. i would note that the discussion of some of the unintended consequences -- there is a reason that there is a provision dealing with 2/3 majority of the board being able to modify. if you had a project with overwhelming examples, it is hard to imagine a beneficial
project of that type that would not have the support of 2/3 of the board of supervisors. one of the concerns here is the mass demolition of rent- controlled housing by a mere majority of the board in violation of city policy. it is city policy to preserve rent-controlled housing. that is what we want to restore here, to make sure that these massive demolition projects cannot move to the system on a simple majority of the board. >> can you clarify, 15 units or 20 units? >> i did not write it, but my understanding was that it was 50. as i said, i did not draft it. supervisor elsbernd: what is the intent? >> 50. supervisor kim: any other public comment at this time?
public comment is now closed. are there any comments? supervisor elsbernd: i hope the other four supervisors viewed this tape and talked to john. we have unintended consequences and the first measure, but in this one are beyond the pale and could have such a significant impact. when her the sponsor of the legislation may clear that this is about park merced. let's not let something that could have such a horrific policy impact on the housing infrastructure go forward. please keep that in mind and withdraw signatures. supervisor farrell: thank you for coming forward today, everyone. i think we are 3 for 3 on horrible ideas today, and it has been a long day. it will be interesting to see if my colleagues stick by their guns at succumb to legal pressure and the media to withdraw.
supervisor elsbernd: i hope it is not succumbing to political pressure, i hope it is common sense. this is not politics, it is pure policy. this could be very disastrous. >supervisor kim: is similar ordinance when the majority of a vote -- won a majority of the vote. my understanding was that this was vetted through a public hearing and is going to the process now. supervisor elsbernd: that was seven years ago. not one member on the board now was on the board then. supervisor kim: the was the process that it went through. we can argue about what is the best legislative process, i feel like that we should be going
through the legislative process as much as possible. it was the belief that because of the previous process, that this does not go to the legislation process. supervisor elsbernd: it was not part of a public hearing, and the only person that makes a presentation isn't a supervisor, this is a sham. supervisor kim: i apologize for that. i thought committee members had been presenting in the past on behalf of supervisors. we can definitely talk about the appropriate protocol. it was my understanding that we have done that in the past. supervisor elsbernd: i think it only happened when one of the four wasn't here. it wasn't the case this time. supervisor kim: any other comments? seeing